I have a large GDB database of points of interest across the world. I can open this up in FME and the data viewer works great in showing me the content in a way that is easily consumable. Despite all of these data rows being filled with lots of info, and being properly mapped in the world viewer feature, I don't have the lat/long coordinates for these places.

I've tried several variations of Transformations, but I am unable to output the lat/long coordinates that I am looking for. Right now I am using a coordinateExtractor, that is successfully adding new X and Y values to the output file, but the coordinates don't show up as valid on Google maps. For example, this is what I am currently getting for a given row:

X: 1136921.462499998509884
Y: 216469.213800000026822 

I feel like I am close! But I am stuck. How can I get the lat/long coordinates for each of these rows in a format that Google Maps will take?


Method 1: Add a reprojector before the coordinate extractor to convert the points from the source coordinate system into LL84. The points will then be in latitude/longitude. Note that following the coordinateExtractor the X attribute will hold longitude and the Y attribute will hold latitude.

This method assumes the GDB has the current map projection for the data correctly assigned; if not - use a CoordinateSystemSetter before the reprojector.

Method 2: Alternatively, use the AttributeReprojector transformer which can be used to convert the X and Y attributes themselves into lat/lon. This way the features themselves are unchanged. You will need to specify the source and target coordinate systems.

  • thanks for your answer! That helped me get the coordinates into a format Google Maps would take. As I am going through and testing a few of them, it looks like they are pretty accurate. Some of them are slightly off, maybe within a half mile of accuracy. Is it possible that the option I used (method 1 above) is to blame? Or is this likely a limitation of the accuracy of the actual data in the GDB file? Jun 14 '19 at 14:05
  • 1
    Hard to confirm without further information. However if most of the processed points are indeed OK - then it is fairly reasonable to assume the remaining inaccuracies is due to source data outliers.
    – JimT
    Jun 14 '19 at 14:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.